Freshers' Week is a Long Time in Politics

First year student and new to politics Matthew Wilcock gives a wonderful insight explaining how he went from knowing nothing about politics at the start of Freshers’ week to finding a political party that suits him.

“Attending a Conservative Future event, I immediately felt underdressed.”
Photo Credit: George Peck via Compfight cc

Bewildering, over-complicated and irrelevant  would have been three words I associated with politics a few weeks ago. I knew little to none about politics but I wanted to get involved. The problem was that political allegiances, which I’m so often told come instinctively, haven’t formed in me at all. So I threw myself out there: at the mercy of the student societies.

The first step was to attend the cross-party debate. With my appetite whet, I decided to give every party a fair chance. I decided to go to an event hosted by the four largest political societies on campus (Socialist Students, Labour Students, Conservative Future and Freedom Society). Finally, I would then choose a party.

I began with SocStu. As with all things ‘uni’, when I heard terms such as “exploiting class”, “revolution” and “utopia” being thrown about, I realised I’d started once more in the deep end. A political ignoramus, I appreciated the introductory talk on “What is Socialism?” but SocStu’s brand of ‘socialism’ was a few shades too red for my liking.

Probing SocStu members at the Ram, I found SocStu’s committee were more than happy to answer by naive questions. (They may have had a few pints more than me.)  Dress code errs on the side of casual, far left views not compulsory but encouraged with friendliness and alcohol is in abundance.

Moving on to Labour. “We are MUCH cheaper than CF” – Labour Student’s battle cry, as voiced by Daniel Richards, their president. I sought to find out what Labour stands for. Dan helped me out: “Living standards, education and health care are my big three”. (Perfect: these align with my interests rather well.)

I had my doubts with Labour’s tax proposals and, in some cases seemingly unwavering, stance against big business. Labour offers a relaxed and friendly group of students and therefore it is, all the more so, refreshing that their attitude to politics is very active and organised. Thus, I sought to test the mettle of a few lefties by challenging them with my qualms: I was impressed but ‘wholly convinced’? Not sure. Let’s hold out and see what the others say.

Dan talked about canvassing and leafleting: here we go, tell me about ‘politics proper’! Dan launched off: “Exeter MP Ben Bradshaw … many contacts and resources … be more involved in national politics”. Harry Chamberlain, chairman of Conservative Future, sounded similar: “largest youth wing of any political party … get involved… opportunities… over 18,000 members”. Both party leaders have evidently been well trained!

It was time to attend a Freedom Society event. Cautiously making my way across the Ram after the EU debate to Rory Broomfield, Director of ‘Better Off Out’, I felt brave. A week ago, I was unable to say much about the EU, but I had spent the night before in a ‘Google frenzy’: ‘What is the EU?’ ‘Better in or out?’ ‘UKIP economic policies?’ ‘Nigel Farage’ led me to ‘Farage Boasts of beating Ball Cancer’ … I’d read enough. Pro-EU, then as now, I came to blows with Rory and the surrounding Freedom members. Neither could I stomach Freedom’s EU stance nor their thinly veiled nationalism.

Attending a Conservative Future event, I immediately felt underdressed. There was a strict adherence to the clichéd Tory dress code of shirts and blazers. Harry gave me his own three areas of politics where he thought the Tories trounced Labour: “Education, Welfare and Jobs”.  ‘For hard working people’ ran the tagline at the Conservative conference and the CF members believe this- a handful “seeking independence from the ‘Bank of Mum and Dad”- I’m not quite there yet.

I initially thought CF at Exeter could likely boast the broadest consensus of a party on campus after hearing ‘Cameroon’ used as both vitriolic criticism and truly complimentary. I felt there was room for me to put across a case against Tory policy on welfare, housing and the EU. I convinced one person: myself. The more I spoke to Tory members about policy, the more I saw myself arguing against them, swaying to the left.

Could this possibly be that political instinct I’d been so long deprived of? I came to a conclusion. I joined Labour (and hope to promote myself further to the position of party stalwart.) My three words about politics: “Exciting, integral and irresistible”.

Did anybody else investigate all of the politcal societies? Can you really be informed enough to commit yourself to one party in such a short space of time? Leave a comment below or write to the Comment team at the Exeposé Comment Facebook Group or on Twitter @CommentExepose.

Ben Bradshaw: Popular, not Populist

President of Exeter Labour Students Daniel Richards responds to Chris Carter’s article in Exeposé Comment which condemned Ben Bradshaw MP as “unrealistic and populist”.

I’m afraid I have to disagree with the recent article on Ben Bradshaw which criticised him for being populist and unrealistic and I must also disagree with the implicit elitism that appeared to be inherent in the argument made and his glorification of Conservative ‘youth’ policy.

“Ben is a committed politician, who works tirelessly for Exeter and his constituents and to simply attack his arguments as empty words undermines the great deal of good he has done for this city.”
Image credits: Niklas Rahmel.

Firstly it is claimed that no realistic solutions are offered by the Labour party who he states ‘created the recession’ and ‘made ridiculous promises to the electorate’ regarding education.

Labour’s higher education policy is clear. We would reduce fees to £6000 and we would do so for one reason. Stephen Twigg, the now ex-shadow education secretary points out correctly that education was one of the areas with the biggest “indefensible inequalities”. £9000 tuition does not only deter those who  think of university as 3 years of drinking and partying, as the article would have you believe, but actually makes university education financially elitist and increasingly difficult for poorer students to enter into.

Universities should be about academic excellence and not the size of your wallet and Labour realises this. The other claims about the Labour party, that they were ‘responsible for the recession,’ are simply factually untrue.

Secondly, increasing the number of students with university education would not devalue your degree. It will give more students and young people greater opportunities and make them more competitive in the global employment market.

Higher education spending has been increasing in recent years in order to keep UK universities competitive on a global scale and provide qualifications for as many young people as possible. It is simply unfair to demonise them for being out of work if there is an active push to discourage them from doing anything about it due to fears of ‘over-education.’

When the author discusses the necessity of a ‘carrot and stick’ approach to open up opportunities for young people and simultaneously force them into work, he is making rash assumptions about the unemployed which simply do not match up with the realities of the situation. I have done unpaid internships, as have many of my friends, in a desperate bid to make myself as employable as physically possible and it is a myth that most young people will not take jobs that are ‘beneath them.’

It is this point that fundamentally highlights the hypocrisy of the argument made. The article adamantly rejects the need to increase the number of people within higher education and further qualify our workforce whilst simultaneously attacking them for being unqualified and unable to find work. His argument is also the argument of the Conservative Party at this time, which has pledged to remove benefits from under 25’s to force them into work.

The statement by David Cameron in recent months that attacked the 1 million young people who were ‘not in education, employment or training’ and his attempts to tackle the issue perfectly summarise what is wrong with his party. They have closed off education to those who cannot afford high tuition fees, they have failed to properly invest in apprenticeships and paid internships and they demonise the unemployed youth, you are forced either into unpaid work, hoping eventually for a paycheck or to remain unemployed. They haven’t the money for training or experience needed to get that elusive paid job and are endlessly attacked for their laziness and vilified as scroungers.

I cannot see where the carrot in this carrot and stick method really is, as the red tape referred to in the article defends the rights of young people to be paid properly for the work they do and taking this away is surely not an incentive to get young people into work.

Finally, I feel it is necessary to defend Ben Bradshaw. Ben is a committed politician, who works tirelessly for Exeter and his constituents and to simply attack his arguments as empty words undermines the great deal of good he has done for this city. The claims that he is populist fail to see the whole picture. Ben Bradshaw is very popular in this constituency because his approach has had such a positive impact in this community. I fail to see why a man who supports his convictions, fights for a fairer education system and wishes to raise up young peoples aspirations rather that shutting the door on them has any reason to apologise for this.

Daniel Richards

Leave a comment below or write to the Comment team at the Exeposé Comment Facebook Group or on Twitter @CommentExepose.

Ben Bradshaw: Unrealistic and Populist?

Deputy Chairman of Exeter University Conservative Future Chris Carter claims that Ben Bradshaw showed the same unrealistic and populist approach currently used by Labour’s leadership in his recent interview with Exeposé Features.

Ben Bradshaw’s views appear to be typical of the approach used by Labour against the coalition: there is plenty of criticism of government policy but no realistic solutions.  Bradshaw is described in the article as “down-to-earth” yet this stands at odds with his laudation of Labour’s aim of getting 50% of young people into higher education, whilst this may seem to be a charming and noble objective it once again shows a failure to recognise reality. The reason why the UK was in such a dire economic situation at the beginning of the decade was that the governments of Blair and Brown made ridiculous promises to impress the electorate and then attempted to fulfil them by spending and borrowing more and more. This, as any adult with a basic grip on reality would tell you, is not sustainable. People know that they cannot keep borrowing money without a realistic plan to repay it, yet Labour believes that the same basic rules do not apply to governments.

“The simple fact of the matter is that higher education is meant to be exclusive by its very nature; if everyone in the country had a 2nd in Marketing then the degree itself would be worthless.”
Image credits: Niklas Rahmel.

The simple fact of the matter is that higher education is meant to be exclusive by its very nature; if everyone in the country had a 2^nd in Marketing then the degree itself would be worthless. Labour’s policy towards higher education has not only been economically harmful but also damaging to the degrees and higher education itself. The large number of universities and the generous funding they received from Labour has led to a countless array of useless degrees ranging from David Beckham studies at Staffordshire University to Surfing Studies at Plymouth University. If Bradshaw is right that higher education should be paid for by the government is it really fair that ordinary taxpayers should have to fork out on such worthless courses?

By making students pay in part for their courses the government is encouraging them to think about both their willingness to do the course and also the usefulness of the degree in their later lives. Students should not just think of university as 3 years of drinking and partying with a couple of lectures thrown in for good measure. Rather, they should consider the value of the course they are applying for and how it would be relevant to getting a job later in life and then choose one accordingly. This, more than anything else, would help make the UK workforce more competitive in the global economy as students would come out of university with a sought after degree and hence be more attractive to future employers.

Youth unemployment is indeed an issue and as demonstrated above sending more off to university is not the solution. Instead the government needs to focus on improving primary and secondary education so that teenagers who finish secondary school are given the best chance to succeed in the highly competitive job market. The current reforms initiated by Michael Gove are indeed aiming to achieve that and I for one think that the education minister deserves praise for his efforts to focus schools’ attention on the main subjects of English and Maths, which have been neglected for easier subjects for too long.

For those who have left school with minimal qualifications, thanks to years of neglect under previous governments, then I support the use of the carrot and stick approach. For the carrot I support the government’s deregulation of the labour market, red tape is preventing companies from employing more young people, and through its encouragement of training schemes and internships. Labour and many teens may scoff that many of these are unpaid and so don’t count, and so aren’t worth doing. This is precisely what is wrong with the younger generations, a willingness to pass on jobs and opportunities which they regard as ‘menial’ and ‘beneath them.’ This is the reason why youth unemployment is increasing, the older generations are taking any opportunity for employment they can get whilst younger generations are not. To try and solve this culture of expectancy I support the stick approach whereby young unemployed people have to work for their benefits rather than just accept them as a free hand-out.  It is all very well for Bradshaw and Labour to talk about how bad youth unemployment is but how much do we hear about focused and realistic solutions? Very little.

Bradshaw has long prided himself as being different from most Labour MP’s and in some ways he is. He at least didn’t go to Oxbridge, yet his rhetoric and policies, or lack thereof, shows the same popularity seeking approach advocated by Labour’s leadership. A lack of serious substance and realistic objectives show that Labour still has not learnt its lessons from the recession that they caused and why they still cannot be trusted to govern.

N.B I found the Lib Dems “direct deceit of the electorate” very amusing coming from someone who had served in Blair’s 2001-5 government.

Christopher Carter

Do you agree with Christopher’s characterisation of Bradshaw? What proportion of young people should be going into higher education? Leave a comment below or write to the Comment team at the Exeposé Comment Facebook Group or on Twitter @CommentExepose.

Comment at the Cross-Party Debate

With it being the first political debate of the new academic year, a high turnout greeted the 5 Presidents of the main political societies on campus for the cross-party debate. Exeposé Comment were at the event to deliver a report on the current state of the student political societies.

The first issue up for discussion was a previously agreed upon question concerning the economy: “Is the government cutting too much?”

President of the Freedom Society Liam Taylor began by asking where the cuts actually were; he claimed that this government’s ‘Right to Buy’ housing scheme would be detrimental to the economy, adding that these were the sort of schemes that had gotten us into the mess we are in now. President of Exeter Labour Students Dan Richards argued that borrowing has gone up under this government and the right can’t just keep blaming Labour for the situation today, pointing out that borrowing is forecast to be higher in the five years of this government than the whole 13 years under the previous regime. Harry Chamberlain, President of Exeter Conservative Future thought that the government had the balance of cuts about right but suggested that any more could potentially harm the recovery. Alex Whattam, President of Exeter Student Liberal Democrats seemed to imply that the cuts couldn’t be blamed for the poor economic performance – instead citing the problems in the Eurozone and that 51% of our exports are to EU countries. Carlus Hudson, co-President of Exeter Socialist Students began in rather a stereotypical fashion, quoting Karl Marx, much to the amusement of the audience. He went on to say that the problems we have today can be traced right back as far as 20-30 years ago and also agreed with Taylor that the ‘Right to buy’ scheme would do more harm than good.

“On some issues, there was a widespread consensus across the panel; when it came to discussing Syria all five panelists believed that not pressing ahead with military action was the right thing to have happened and that a diplomatic solution would be preferable and was now a distinct possibility.”
Photo Credit: Niklas Rahmel.

Early on, it was evident that all members of the panel were a bit nervous, which is understandable given the size of the audience. The situation was certainly not helped by the background discussions taking place in the audience and the numerous unhelpful and unintelligent heckles from the back of the room.

Harry Chamberlain came across as calm and unflustered throughout the debate without landing any major political blows. He appeared to be at his best when discussing the current state of the NHS – when presented with a suggestion that halving doctors pay could double the amount of doctors available, he rightfully pointed out that in order to attract high quality people, a higher salary is needed. After blaming Labour for borrowing too much in the good times, Chamberlain was left in a bit of a pickle when it was pointed out to him that the Conservatives had backed Labour’s spending plans right up until the beginning of the recession.

Carlus Hudson was one of the more engaging members of the panel, providing some conflict into an otherwise quite friendly debate. Despite being perhaps a little over the top on the rhetoric and the clichés, there is no doubt that he made some very interesting points. He launched a scathing attack of the European Union where he claimed the EU only serves the capitalist interests of big business and fails to act in the interest of the European population.

Representing Exeter Labour Students, Dan Richards was up against the wall with most of the panel disagreeing with him on most of the issues – it’s not easy being left-wing in Exeter! On the economy, he all but admitted that Ed Balls had been wrong and that austerity has worked. He gave a staunch defence of Labour’s time in government, rightfully pointing out that the economy was growing when Labour left office in 2010 and that borrowing is forecasted to rise more under this government than in the entire time under Labour. The fact that this point is correct but was greeted with vicious laughter from a hostile audience summed up his afternoon.

Nick Best, who attended the debate, said that, “The socialists and freedom representatives stood out. It’s surprising how much they had in common and agreed upon. I enjoyed the lively audience participation at times too. There are lots of freedom lovers around!”

Throughout the debate, Liam Taylor came across as being comfortable in his line of argument. He’d obviously done his research, presenting numerous facts and figures to try and prove his points. The “Liam mentions a Scandinavian country” tally stood at a disappointing 4 for this debate. He did have the advantage of not being tied to a major political party, enabling him to have more flexibility in his views. The proposals were great, but their pragmatism is another issue.

Overheard in the Moot Room: “Don’t you think Liam looks like a young Leonardo DiCaprio?”
Photo Credit: narice28 via Compfight cc and Liam Taylor.

President of Exeter Liberal Youth Alex Whattam had the most challenging afternoon out of the panel. It was always going to be a tough ask with his party in dire straits polling just 9% nationally in a recent YouGov poll. In true Lib Dem style, he sat on the fence on a number of the key issues such as the economy, health and foreign aid. Rather bizarrely, he left Dan Richards stranded on the issue of Europe, saying that it wouldn’t be that bad if Britain left and that we should have had a referendum sooner! Unfortunately Alex looked underprepared for the debate as arguably the most inexperienced member of the panel concerning this type of event.

On some issues, there was a widespread consensus across the panel; when it came to discussing Syria all five panelists believed that not pressing ahead with military action was the right thing  to have happened and that a diplomatic solution would be preferable and was now a distinct possibility. Rather curiously, as much as they would hate to admit it, Carlus Hudson of SocStu and Liam Taylor found themselves largely in agreement on a number of issues, such as the European Union, the ‘Right to Buy’ scheme and foreign aid.

An honourable mention should also go to Ellie Binks, who chaired the event. She made a good effort at establishing a level and tolerant forum for discussion and made some important decisions regarding the length of some panelists’ responses, some of which were even acknowledged. Hopefully this event will set a precedent for the year in terms of open-forum debate between members of all student political societies.

Dave Reynolds and James Bennett, Online Comment Editors.

Did you attend the cross-party debate? Did you see it differently from our analysis? If so, leave a comment below or write to the Comment team at the Exeposé Comment Facebook Group or on Twitter @CommentExepose.